Citations

Abstract Background. There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function.Methods. We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020 with DGF to determine factors associated with DGF duration as well as the impact of DGF duration on 1) acute rejection, BKV infection, progression of fibrosis on protocol biopsy, and death censored graft survival 2) resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: <14 DGF days, 14-27 DGF days, >28 DGF days.Results. There were 1714 DDKT were included, 59.4% (n=1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted >28 days. Conclusions. Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting <28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival. Trial Registration. Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB.

Abstract The mechanisms underlying the regulation of a checkpoint receptor, PD-1, in tumor-infiltrating immune cells during the development of colorectal cancer are not fully understood. Here we demonstrate that COX-2–derived PGE2, an inflammatory mediator and tumor promoter, induces PD-1 expression by enhancing NFκB's binding to the PD-1 promoter via an EP4–PI3K–Akt signaling pathway in both CD8+ T cells and macrophages. Moreover, PGE2 suppresses CD8+ T-cell proliferation and cytotoxicity against tumor cells and impairs macrophage phagocytosis of cancer cells via an EP4–PI3K–Akt–NFκB–PD-1 signaling pathway. In contrast, inhibiting the COX-2–PGE2–EP4 pathway increases intestinal CD8+ T-cell activation and proliferation and enhances intestinal macrophage phagocytosis of carcinoma cells accompanied by reduction of PD-1 expression in intestinal CD8+ T cells and macrophages in ApcMin/+ mice. PD-1 expression correlates well with COX-2 levels in human colorectal cancer specimens. Both elevated PD-1 and COX-2 are associated with poorer overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Our results uncover a novel role of PGE2 in tumor immune evasion. They may provide the rationale for developing new therapeutic approaches to subvert this process by targeting immune checkpoint pathways using EP4 antagonists. In addition, our findings reveal a novel mechanism explaining how NSAIDs reduce colorectal cancer risk by suppressing tumor immune evasion. Prevention Relevance: These findings provide a potential explanation underlying the chemopreventive effect of NSAIDs on reducing colorectal cancer incidence during premalignancy and provide a rationale for developing EP4 antagonists for colorectal cancer prevention and treatment. Simply targeting PGE2 signaling alone may be efficacious in colorectal cancer prevention and treatment, avoiding side effects associated with NSAIDs.

Background: Patients with cardiovascular disease and risk factors for cardiovascular illness are more likely to acquire severe 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection (COVID-19). COVID-19 infection is more common in patients with cardiovascular illness, and they are more likely to develop severe symptoms. Nevertheless, whether COVID-19 patients are more likely to develop cardiovascular disorders such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still up for debate. Methods: We will follow the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) to report our final study, including a systematic search of the bibliographic database using the appropriate combination of search terms or keywords. The choice of search terms is discussed in more detail later in this paper. The obtained results will be screened, and the data extracted from the studies selected for systematic review will be based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using the obtained data, we will then perform the associated Meta-analysis to generate the forest plot (pooled estimated effect size Hazard Ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) values) using the random-effects model. Any publication bias will be assessed using the funnel plot symmetry, Orwin and Classic Fail-Safe N Test and Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlation Test and Egger’s Test of the intercept. In cases where insufficient data occur, we will also perform a qualitative review. Discussion: This systematic review will explore COVID-19 clinical outcomes, especially survival in patients hospitalised with Acute Myocardial Infarction, by utilising a collection of previously published data on hospitalised COVID-19 patients and Myocardial Infarction. Highlighting these prognostic survival analyses of COVID-19 patients with AMI will have significant clinical implications by allowing for better overall treatment strategies and patient survival estimates by offering clinicians a method of quantitatively analysing the pattern of COVID-19 cardiac complications.

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)‐weighted dose to the heart and to estimate RBE uncertainties when assuming a constant RBE of 1.1, for breast cancer patients receiving intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Further, to study the impact of RBE uncertainties on the risk of an acute coronary event (ACE).Material and methodsWe analyzed 20 patients who received IMPT to either the left breast (n = 10) or left chest wall (n = 10) and regional lymph nodes. The Monte Carlo simulation engine, MCsquare, was used to simulate the dose‐averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) map. The RBE‐weighted dose to the heart and its substructures was calculated using three different RBE models. The risk of ACE was estimated per its linear relationship with mean heart dose (MHD) as established by Darby et al.ResultsThe median MHD increased from 1.33 GyRBE assuming an RBE of 1.1 to 1.64, 1.87, and 1.99 GyRBE when using the RBE‐weighted dose models. The median values (and ranges) of the excess absolute risk of ACE were 0.4% (0.1%–0.8%) when assuming an RBE of 1.1, and 0.6% (0.2%–1.0%), 0.6% (0.2%–1.1%), and 0.7% (0.2%–1.1%) with the RBE‐weighted models. For our patient cohort, the maximum excess absolute risk of ACE increased by 0.3% with the RBE‐weighted doses compared to the constant RBE of 1.1, reaching an excess absolute ACE risk of 1.1%. The interpatient LETd variation was small for the relevant high‐dose regions of the heart.ConclusionAll three RBE models predicted a higher biological dose compared to the clinical standard dose assuming a constant RBE of 1.1. An underestimation of the biological dose results in underestimation of the ACE risk. Analyzing the voxel‐by‐voxel biological dose and the LET map alongside clinical outcomes is warranted in the development of a more accurate normal‐tissue complication probability model.

INTRODUCTION: Although an additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine dose for immunocompromised persons has been recommended in some countries, further data to guide vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are urgently needed. We sought to identify factors affecting initial humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines among patients with IBD. METHODS: In this prospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 immunized patients with IBD, we evaluated associations between participant age, sex, vaccine type, medication use, and the presence of a detectable antireceptor binding domain antibody and quantitative antibody level. RESULTS: In total, 1,909 participants were included (1,123, 692, and 94 received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively) of whom 96% achieved a positive antibody response. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with lack of antibody response were older age ( P = 0.043), BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273 (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–3.9), and combination therapy with anti-TNF and 6MP, azathioprine, or methotrexate (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.4–7.3). The use of 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8) and ustekinumab (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05–0.8) was associated with decreased odds of lacking antibody response. DISCUSSION: Most patients with IBD mount an initial response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, older patients and those treated with anti-TNF and immunomodulator have blunted responses and may benefit the most from an additional vaccine dose. Patients treated with other classes of immunosuppressive medications have more robust initial immune responses to vaccination. These data should inform key decisions about patient selection for additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine doses in patients with IBD.

Background. Improving both patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation are major unmet needs. The goal of this study was to assess risk factors for specific causes of graft loss to determine to what extent patients who develop either death with a functioning graft (DWFG) or graft failure (GF) have similar baseline risk factors for graft loss. Methods. We retrospectively studied all solitary renal transplants performed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018, at 3 centers and determined the specific causes of DWFG and GF. We examined outcomes in different subgroups using competing risk estimates and cause-specific Cox models. Results. Of the 5752 kidney transplants, graft loss occurred in 21.6% (1244) patients, including 12.0% (691) DWFG and 9.6% (553) GF. DWFG was most commonly due to malignancy (20.0%), infection (19.7%), cardiac disease (12.6%) with risk factors of older age and pretransplant dialysis, and diabetes as the cause of renal failure. For GF, alloimmunity (38.7%), glomerular diseases (18.6%), and tubular injury (13.9%) were the major causes. Competing risk incidence models identified diabetes and older recipients with higher rates of both DWFG and nonalloimmune GF. Conclusions. These data suggest that at baseline, 2 distinct populations can be identified who are at high risk for renal allograft loss: a younger, nondiabetic patient group who develops GF due to alloimmunity and an older, more commonly diabetic population who develops DWFG and GF due to a mixture of causes—many nonalloimmune. Individualized management is needed to improve long-term renal allograft survival in the latter group.

Background: Amyloidosis is a protein misfolding disorder that leads to the deposition of beta-pleated sheets of a fibrillar derivative of various protein precursors. Identification of the type of precursor protein is integral in treatment decision-making. The presence of two different types of amyloid in the same patient is unusually rare, and there are no previous reports of two different types of amyloid deposition in the ligamentum flavum (LF) in the same patient. Case Description: Here, we describe two patients with spinal stenosis who underwent laminectomies and were found to have AL and ATTR amyloid deposits in the LF. Conclusion: As the spine is becoming recognized as a site for ATTRwt amyloid deposition, patients undergoing spinal decompression surgery may potentially benefit from evaluation for amyloidosis in the LF.

Abstract Introduction: Prostate Cancer (PCa) risk is influenced by both rare germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in DNA damage repair genes and common variants as measured by polygenic risk scores (PRS) however, the combined effect of GPVs and PRS on PCa risk in men of African ancestry has not been investigated. Methods: We examined the combined effect of rare GPVs and PRS on PCa risk in 1,795 PCa cases and 1,424 controls of African ancestry men from the Multiethnic Cohort, the Los Angeles Study of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, and the Uganda Prostate Cancer Study. GPVs in 19 DNA genes were defined as clinically validated missense variants and variants that alter the protein sequence. The PRS was constructed as a weighted sum of 267 established PCa risk variants. The combined effect of the PRS and GPV status on PCa risk was evaluated using logistic regression models adjusting for age, study, and the first 10 principal components of ancestry to account for population stratification. Results: We identified 91 GPVs carried by 31 controls and 68 cases. Among GPV non-carriers, compared to those with average PRS (33.3-66.7%), odds ratios for PCa ranged from 0.56 (95% CI=0.45-0.70; P=1.2E-7) in low PRS men (0-33.3%) to 3.04 (95% CI=2.54-3.63; P=5.6E-35) in high PRS men (66.7-100%). Among GPV carriers, odds ratios for PCa ranged from 2.09 (95% CI=0.85-5.12; P=0.11) in low PRS men to 5.03 (95% CI=2.37-10.66; P=2.5E-5) in high PRS men, compared to GPV non-carriers with average PRS. Next, we restricted GPVs to ATM, BRCA2, PALB2, and NBN[BD2] (n=51 variants carried by 8 controls and 44 cases), which we previously reported as being the genes most strongly associated with advanced PCa in this population and study sample. Among GPV non-carriers, odds ratios for PCa ranged from 0.56 (95% CI=0.46-0.71; P=2.7E-7) in low PRS men to 5.03 (95% CI=0.85-5.12; P=0.11) in high PRS men, while among GPV carriers, odd ratios for PCa ranged from 2.08 (95% CI=0.58-7.49; P=0.26) in low PRS men to 18.06 (95% CI=4.24-76.84; P=9.0E-5) in high PRS men, compared to average PRS GPV non-carriers. When comparing aggressive cases to controls, considering the top four genes, GPV non-carrier odds ratios for PCa ranged from 0.52 (95% CI=0.40-0.70; P=6.2E-6) in low PRS men to 3.16 (95% CI=2.56-3.91; P=1.6E-26) in high PRS men, while among GPV carriers, odd ratios for PCa ranged from 2.97 (95% CI=073-12.16; P=0.13) in low PRS men to 23.58 (95% CI=5.39-103.20; P=2.7E-5) in high PRS men, compared to average PRS GPV non-carriers. Conclusion: We found that PCa risk in African ancestry men carrying GPVs in DNA damage repair and cancer predisposition genes, particularly ATM, BRCA2, PALB2, and NBN, varied depending on an individual's PRS. This implies that to comprehensively assess genetic risk of PCa, it is important to consider both rare and common variants. These findings could have implications for risk stratification in this high-risk population and emphasize the need for larger genetic studies of PCa in African ancestry men to identify and characterize genetic risk factors in this population. Citation Format: Raymond W. Hughley, Burcu F. Darst, Marco Matejcic, Yesha Patel, Jenna Lilyquist, Steven N. Hart, Eric C. Polley, Lucy Xia, Xin Sheng, Alexander Lubmawa, Sue A. Ingles, Lynne Wilkens, Loïc L. Marchand, Stephen Watya, Fergus J. Couch, David V. Conti, Christopher A. Haiman. Combined effect of a prostate cancer polygenic risk score and germline pathogenic variants in DNA damage repair genes on prostate cancer risk in men of African ancestry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-197.

Introduction: Melanoma is a global disease that is predominant in Western countries. However, reliable data resources and comprehensive studies on the theragnostic efficiency of miRNAs in melanoma are scarce. Hence, a decisive study or comprehensive review is required to collate the evidence for profiling miRNAs as a theragnostic marker. This protocol details a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of miRNAs on chemoresistance and their association with theragnosis in melanoma. Methods and analysis: The articles will be retrieved from online bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Review, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science, with different permutations of ‘keywords’. To obtain full-text papers of relevant research, a stated search method will be used, along with selection criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P) standards were used to create this study protocol. The hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval will be analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software 3.0. (CI). The pooled effect size will be calculated using a random or fixed-effects meta-analysis model. Cochran’s Q test and the I2 statistic will be used to determine heterogeneity. Egger’s bias indicator test, Orwin’s and the classic fail-safe N tests, the Begg and Mazumdar rank collection test, and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill calculation will all be used to determine publication bias. The overall standard deviation will be evaluated using Z-statistics. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to the melanoma participants’ clinicopathological and biological characteristics and methodological factors if sufficient studies and retrieved data are identified and available. The source of heterogeneity will be assessed using a meta-regression analysis. A pairwise matrix could be developed using either a pairwise correlation or expression associations of miRNA with patients’ survival for the same studies.